00000078.htm

THEORY OF TRUSTEESHIP 67

to it, then life on earth would be governed far more by
love than it is at present. Absolute trusteeship is an
abstraction like Euclid's definition of a point, and is
equally unattainable. But if we strive for it, we shall be
able to go further in realizing a state of equality on
earth than by any other method. ... It is my firm
conviction that if the State suppressed capitalism by
violence, it will be caught in the coils of violence itself,
and fail to develop non-violence at any time. The State
represents violence in a concentrated and organized
form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a
soulless machine, it can never Tie weaned from violence
to which it owes its very existence. Hence I prefer the
doctrine of trusteeship. The fear is always there that
the State may use too much violence against those who
differ from it. I would be very happy indeed if the
people concerned behaved as trustees; but if they fail,
I believe we shall have to deprive them of their posses-
sions through the State with the minimum exercise of
violence. . . . (That is why I said at the Round Table
Conference that every vested interest must be subjected
to scrutiny, and confiscation ordered where necessary
. , . with or without compensation as the case deman-
ded.) What I would personally prefer would be not
a centralization of power in the hands of the State, but
an extension of the sense of trusteeship; as in my opi-
nion the violence of private ownership is less injurious
than the violence of the State. However, if it is unavoid-
able, I would support a minimum of State-ownership.

The Modern Review, 1935, p. 412

It has become the fashion these days to say that
society cannot be organized or run on non-violent lines.
I join issue on that point. In a family, when the father



	THEORY OF TRUSTEESHIP 67 to it, then life on earth would be governed far more by love than it is at present. Absolute trusteeship is an abstraction like Euclid's definition of a point, and is equally unattainable. But if we strive for it, we shall be able to go further in realizing a state of equality on earth than by any other method. ... It is my firm conviction that if the State suppressed capitalism by violence, it will be caught in the coils of violence itself, and fail to develop non-violence at any time. The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never Tie weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence. Hence I prefer the doctrine of trusteeship. The fear is always there that the State may use too much violence against those who differ from it. I would be very happy indeed if the people concerned behaved as trustees; but if they fail, I believe we shall have to deprive them of their posses- sions through the State with the minimum exercise of violence. . . . (That is why I said at the Round Table Conference that every vested interest must be subjected to scrutiny, and confiscation ordered where necessary . , . with or without compensation as the case deman- ded.) What I would personally prefer would be not a centralization of power in the hands of the State, but an extension of the sense of trusteeship; as in my opi- nion the violence of private ownership is less injurious than the violence of the State. However, if it is unavoid- able, I would support a minimum of State-ownership. The Modern Review, 1935, p. 412 It has become the fashion these days to say that society cannot be organized or run on non-violent lines. I join issue on that point. In a family, when the father